| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Simon Stelling wrote: |
| 5 |
> repo-level profile, we move parts of the EAPI out into the tree, which |
| 6 |
> is a bad idea because we are unable to support multiple versions. As the |
| 7 |
> EAPI needed for the ebuild is unknown when sourcing |
| 8 |
> install-helpers.eclass, we're actually forced into using that one and |
| 9 |
> only version, which is quite limiting. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Well, if the metadata generation step is viewed as being separate from the rest, |
| 12 |
and the helpers aren't needed during that step, then it's possible to get the |
| 13 |
EAPI from the ebuild without the helpers being in the environment. Once the |
| 14 |
EAPI is known, the package manager can use that to determine what else (if |
| 15 |
anthing) needs to be added to the environment. Then you'd only need a way to |
| 16 |
tell the package manager which EAPI levels the functions in your |
| 17 |
install-helpers.eclass (or whatever) apply to. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> So, the correct way to do it is to define an EAPI=1 that does no longer |
| 20 |
> include these helper functions and make the eclasses/ebuilds that use it |
| 21 |
> inherit the eclass manually. However, this will need to run through -dev |
| 22 |
> and I'm afraid the ebuild devs wouldn't like it at all :-/ |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
They won't like it because it's expected that EAPI will provide the necessary |
| 25 |
information. Why should they have to inherit some special eclass if it's |
| 26 |
already implied by the EAPI that they've specified? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Zac |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 31 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
iD8DBQFFAEl+/ejvha5XGaMRAhlSAKCjL1CJ5TZT1c+K6qcDMUIVIPMSLACfQ7M2 |
| 34 |
Whd0XSwhfbvUFPRdjjRyOXs= |
| 35 |
=dRI7 |
| 36 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives